The Employment Contract

Although the majority of people do not yet recognize the truth of this statement, countries in the Western (and Westernized) world have become politically fascist. Students of fascism recognize that it is a form of government dominated by large corporations.  Thus, today’s largest employers, the biggest corporations, are extensions of the government and every employment contract amounts to a contract with the government (the King). If it is the policy—not even the law—of the government to disallow employment to anyone who will not present a social security number, for instance, the larger corporations can be counted on to act on that policy and exclude any private individual from employment. This certainly can make life difficult for an individual desirous of achieving or retaining freedom.

In this chapter, Mercier considers the issue of attempting to retain one’s inherent rights as an individual while working for a large corporation (or the government corporation itself).

A solution not entertained by Mercier is to avoid “employment” by refusing to work for “wages”.  May an individual not agree with another private individual to provide his services on a purely voluntary basis? And would it not be in the other party’s best interests to see to it that such an individual is provided with his living needs to allow him to continue to provide such services, all without an “employment” contract?  If a small corporation paid for such an individual’s sustenance, thereby ensuring ongoing benefits to the corporation from his services, wouldn’t such expenses be legitimate deductions for the corporation? And if the first party is paid no “money”, what is there to tax—his necessary food, clothing or shelter? Perhaps the IRS collector would accept the food after it has passed through the individual’s system?

Setting the foregoing deliberations aside for now, let’s proceed with Mercier’s answer for those who might try to retain status as nontaxpayer individuals while working for one of the larger corporations or government agencies. Be advised going in, however, that such entities are fictions of law and as such they truly can only interface with other fictions—legally speaking.

The Social Security Number

[QUOTING:]

…(W)e will consider additional “points of attachment of King’s Equity Jurisdiction on us all… (t)hrough the beneficial use of a taxable franchise like Social Security.  A lot of folks don’t realize it, but the presentation of a Social Security Number to your Employer is a contract with the King to pay taxes, and an acknowledgement of personal Status as a Taxpayer.

Question:  How do you get out of this?

Answer:  This is not an easy thing to do; clever administrative rule making forced on Employers has tightened Employers up—and they have the money we want.  In an Employee/Employer relationship factual setting as a first step, it is first necessary to terminate all written attachments of King’s Equity Jurisdiction you previously initiated with the King. Some of the steps taken now in this section will not be appreciated until all of the invisible juristic contracts that the King is operating on have been correctively severed—so one has to read the entire Letter first, and then come back to this section. But as for written attachments of King’s Equity Jurisdiction relevant in an Employment factual setting, for most folks, this act transpired when they were a teenager and they signed a form and mailed it to Washington, and requested a Social Security Number.  Pursuant to your administrative request, the King issued out a Number, and so now the contemporary beneficial use of that Social Security Number by you in an Employment setting creates a taxing liability; as the Federal judiciary considers participation in Social Security to be a taxable franchise, among other things.  But that is only a small part of the story, and this rescission is only a point of beginning.

Second, terminate the acceptance and receipt of all benefits that otherwise inure to Social Security beneficiaries, because under Nature remember that no written contract is now necessary, or has ever been necessary, to extract money out of Social Security participants (unless the King in his statutes has explicitly limited himself to collect money only under written contracts for some reason). And in terms of attaching one’s liability to contributing premium reciprocity to the King’s Social Security handout Largesse, the mere rescission of the written Social Security contract, as is now prevalent among Patriots trying to get to the bottom of things is, of and by itself, irrelevant, and does not terminate any taxing liability (as I will explain later).

[In a footnote, Mercier makes the point that the proper party for service of notices of rescission is the Attorney General and concludes, “…omitting to serve the Attorney General in all Federal Administrative Rescissions, Notices of Benefit Rejection, and Objections, might be discouraged”.]

The fundamental reason why employees are viewed universally by State and Federal judges as being taxable objects is because the employee is clothed with multiple layers of juristic contracts separate and apart from Social Security, by reason of the large array of juristic benefits the employee has accepted by his silence. Therefore, employees are in a commercial enrichment setting, employees are in business, and the gain experienced by employees is very much taxable, since the King participated in creating the financial gain the employee is experiencing. But now that you have been placed on Notice that a rightful moral liability does attach on your acceptance of the King’s Employment scenario intervention by throwing invisible juristic benefits at Employees, when you first get hired on again with someone else, as another point of beginning, now let’s change the factual setting a bit, and refuse to provide a Social Security Number.

After they threaten you with termination, as they eventually will do, then provide a number under your objection and over your protest, and notice of waiving and rejecting all benefits otherwise available to you as an Employee; not just retirement benefits, but the immediate environmental protection benefits all Employees experience (by the end of this section, you will see what the immediate benefits are that I am referring to). The objective behind this Objection is to make a Statement. That Objection should cite the King’s forced third party relationship to the arrangements, and your Objection to his intervention against your will; his forcing you to accept his benefits that you now hereby waive, refuse, forfeit and forego; and then also claim that such an unwanted and forced relationship with the King violates relational Principles of Nature not permissible absent the existence of some other invisible contract you may not be aware of; and interferes with your Right to Work under the Fifth Amendment.

[In a footnote, Mercier spells out the importance of timely written objections:  “As for the timeliness of objections, failure to object is automatically fatal, and failure to object timely is equally as fatal. The most important statement in this entire discussion on contracts is this: The bottom line on contract annulment is the State of Mind of the parties at the time of, and immediately prior to, the execution of the contract, since your fundamental argument is that you did not voluntarily enter into any contract with the King; and so now the very existence of the contract itself is disputed.  If you want out of these contracts the King coerced you into by way of his clever administrative rule making on Employers by contracts, then your State of Mind at the time when benefits were first accepted, when the contract was initially entered into, has to be proven by you, through written, timely objections; otherwise, you lose.”]

These Objection presentations are necessarily status oriented, as they define your non-involvement with trade, commerce, business, and industry—an involvement which if left uncountermanded, automatically infers a Contract Law factual setting in effect between your employer, yourself and the King. But if your new Status falls outside the boundary lines of King’s Commerce (where all those who enter therein experience enrichment, created in part by the King’s benefit), then there is an inherent Right to Work interest in the 14^th Amendment as well (Traux vs. Raich, 229 U.S. 33 (1915)). [You might want to be careful, however, invoking the 14^th Amendment because it has been identified as the origin of today’s statutory “citizen”.]

Some ideas to consider and think about while creating your Objection, might be to state perhaps that the Social Security Number you are giving him is being done solely for the purpose of deflecting the otherwise imminent termination of your livelihood, and that the Social Security Number you are giving him was previously rescinded and is presently null and void (and that re-presentation of the number under Protest, Objection and Rejection of Benefits after its prior nullification does not reactivate it); and that you hereby waive, forfeit, forego, and will return where possible, any and all benefits that would otherwise inure to you as an Employee and as a participant in the Social Security retirement program, and that this Objection you are filing is a continuous one, and that any qualified acceptance of bank drafts taken in contemplation of exchange into hard currency is accepted for the administrative convenience of your Employer, and will be endorsed under protest, at law and not in equity, in the future; etc., does not change, alter, or diminish anything relative to your Status or the life of that Objection. Also noticed out should be statements concerning your non-involvement with Commerce; Status as Non-Taxpayer [Is there such a thing as non-taxpayer status? See note, next paragraph.]; rescission of the attachment of a special King’s Equity Jurisdiction that uncontested Birth Certificates create under some limited circumstances; and Notice of prior Objections having been filed, objecting to the attachment of Equity Jurisdiction that otherwise lie to Holders in Due Course of circulating Federal Reserve equitable instruments that the King’s Legal Tender Statutes have enhanced the value of, etc. This Objection, along with your Employer’s threats, must all be in writing as a confrontation with the King is coming. (Your Employer will forward the Social Security Number to the IRS, who then in turn will simply assume that you are a Taxpayer, and reasonably so, based upon what little information they have). Since the IRS has some evidence that you are a Taxpayer, the burden then shifts to you to prove that yes, although the IRS does have my number, these are the reasons as to why I am not a Taxpayer. In such a confrontational setting, it ranges from possible to likely that your Employer will lie, have a convenient loss of memory, and otherwise not stick up for you when push accelerates to shove. Since the burden of proof to prove non-Taxpayer and non-Commercial Status now falls on you, depositions which would ordinarily be necessary from your Employer to prove that your Objections were made timely (with the questioning contained therein discussing the circumstances surrounding the surrendering of that Social Security Number to him), now becomes unnecessary.  If the Employer’s threats to terminate you, and your Objections and Rescissions are all down tight in writing, the factual setting is now undisputed, and depositions are unnecessary; so a little prevention here is important.

[Does “nontaxpayer” status exist? Apparently it does, as Mercier documents in a footnote:  “...[A] nontaxpayer is outside the administrative system set up for the collection of a refund of overpaid taxes, and is not required to file a claim for refund to recover money taken from him...  The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessments and collection.  They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws...”—Economy Heating vs. The United States, 470 F.2^nd 585, at 589 (1972) (sentences quoted out of order).

[For a nontaxpayer, for whom the large body of law subsequent to the 1930s is largely irrelevant, the following citation from a footnote could be quite useful:  “The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man’s spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect.  They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things.  They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone—the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.”—Justice Louis Brandeis in Olmstead vs. United States, 277 U.S. 436, at 478 (1927).]

As for the IRS, the only information they have is a name and your Social Security Number, so as a point of beginning, it is reasonable for them to simply proceed against you as if you are a Taxpayer; and agents trying to collect money for the King should not be viewed as some type of an enemy to kill (they are transient ad hoc adversaries, not enemies).  Under normal circumstances, your Case can be won at the administrative level by requesting an Administrative Hearing and using Title 5 and the Code of Federal Regulations with savoir faire, and then taking your Case up the grievance ladder, one step at a time.

But just in case, get ready to speak your mind in front of the Supreme Court, if necessary.  If physically flying yourself to Washington does not intrigue you, then you might consider paying the requested tax, as you have already lost.

[END QUOTING]

The commercial system within which almost all Westerners find themselves embedded is, of course, “voluntary”—if almost inescapable. As stated in Revelations 13:17: “So that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.” So, how can one function without being in King’s commerce and thus a “person subject to” the King’s caprice? Can we expect the King’s Courts to accept our declarations of personal sovereignty? That approach certainly did not work well for the likes of Leroy Schweitzer (of the Montana Freemen, who has disappeared since butting heads with the judicial system) or Roger Elvick (arrested in September 2003 for promoting the concept of “redemption”)—at least not while they maintained contracts with the King by continuing to engage in the King’s commerce.

At this point I am going to suggest that anyone inside the King’s Courts arguing (literally “pleading”) for individual sovereignty has already lost. The very act of proceeding in such a court (“at equity” instead of “at law”) is, on the face of things, an attempt to obtain a judicial benefit—which, of course, derives from the King.  Further, such courts can only deal with fictions-of-law, known as “persons”. Thus, in my opinion, Mercier’s suggestion of taking your case up to the Supreme Court for adjudication seems less than practical for anyone who would wish to be free and separate from the state-created, all-caps, strawman “person”.  The ONLY way to be truly free, as far as I can discern, is to avoid individual involvement in the King’s commerce entirely. But while it is the stated purpose of this synopsis to explore the issue of personal freedom, Mercier is at this point addressing the narrower issue of whether or not it is possible to retain the status of individual (as opposed to statutorily-governed person) as an “employee”. If this more finite goal is achievable on its own, without rescinding all contracts with the King (including the citizenship contract, for instance), I can see no way to achieve it other than what Mercier proposes.

At this point Mercier suggests taking a proactive approach:  Rather than wait for problems to arise with the IRS or Social Security Administration, he suggests that the individual try to arrange for an administrative hearing of the issue.  By obtaining a favorable administrative ruling of a “justiciable controversy”, subsequent attacks on one’s position can be “collaterally estopped”.

Administrative Hearings

[QUOTING:]

Now that this discussion has shifted over to the administrative adjudication of grievances with the King, I need to digress just a bit and discuss Principles relating to Demands for an Administrative Hearing. In an administrative adjudication, numerous people I know of have requested administrative hearings to discuss the want of jurisdiction that the King or a Prince was asserting generally in many different settings. As part of the strategy involved, failure by the state administrators to grant a hearing would later bar civil tax liability and even a criminal prosecution for the same actus reus later under the Collateral Estoppel Doctrine, which is an unwritten Common Law Principle….

…Correctly understood, these Administrative Law Demands are marvelous devices, which, if handled properly, can and will tie the King’s and the Prince’s giblets down tight: but they need to be viewed, understood, and plead, properly. These Administrative Law Demands many seek are the lesser administrative equivalent of a judicially sought Declaratory Judgment; and so all of the Natural Law requirements and indicia that apply to judicial Declaratory Judgments, also apply to Administrative Judgments. The most important indicia of which is that there must be a Justiciable Controversy at hand, i.e., some type of case or controversy, which if left unresolved will damage a person.

Justiciability is closely related to Standing, and both are indicia related to make sure that you are in fact entitled to the relief that you are seeking, and that there is in fact an actual grievance for the Law to operate on and for the Judiciary to rule upon. In Justiciability averments, you must establish that you have a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy, and that the dispute sought to be administratively adjudicated will be presented in an adversary context, and that the logical nexus between the Status we assert and the claim sought to be adjudicated are both present, along with the necessary degree of contentiousness. To your advantage, the Justiciability Doctrine has uncertain and shifting contours, and properly so, as it organically follows the Branches of the Majestic Oak.

To really understand the reasoning behind the judicial requirement for the presence of Justiciability in Declaratory Judgments, think of Justiciability as being like “tension” in effect between two adversaries.  If the tension is not there, then the Judge (either a Judicial Judge, or an Administrative Law Judge) is not dealing with a grievance, he is actually dealing with a hypothetical factual setting that may or may not ever come to pass.  If the Judge issued down an Order based upon such a hypothetical factual setting without the element of Justiciability in effect, the effect of that Order would be to work a Tort on the adverse Party the Order operates against; this Party did nothing, and in fact may have very well intended to do nothing; but now an Order exists declaring some reversed relational rights (meaning: one of the Parties no longer holds the upper hand). As viewed from a Judge’s perspective, the absence of that “distinct and palpable injury” of Justiciability renders the Case moot, because there is nothing for the Judge to do; and if anything was done by the Judge, a judicial Tort would be thrown at one of the parties for no more than an exchange of hypothetical factual settings between fictional adversaries.  For example, if in fact the Law requires some simple positive act to be performed unilaterally by some Government official regardless of anything you do or don’t do, then a proper remedy to compel performance would lie in Mandamus, where questions of the existence of the tension of Justiciability between adversaries is not relevant. And specifically referring to rebuffed Demands for Administrative Hearings, the correct medicine may actually lay in Alternative Mandamus (meaning: Grant the Hearing, or in the alternative, forfeit your jurisdiction, just the right medicine to deal with bureaucratic recalcitrance).

So merely sending a Demand for an Administrative Hearing to a state official to discuss their assertion of a regulatory jurisdictional environment on the public highways, without any specific Case or controversy being presented for adjudication, will later Collaterally Estop no one, as no averments of a Justiciable Controversy were made (Who is making an assertion of jurisdiction over you? What traffic cop or law enforcement person, and when?  What did the traffic cop say? Where is the assignment of policing jurisdiction of that cop down through state statutes from the Legislature? What penal statute did he threaten you with? What does that statute say? (Go ahead and quote the statute, verbatim). Who is your adversary in the demanded Hearing? Where is your personal stake in the outcome of the demanded Hearing? If the Hearing is not granted, how will you be damaged? Those types of Justiciability averments have to be included in the body of your Demand for an Administrative Hearing; local Collateral Estoppel victories applied against such otherwise content deficient Administrative briefings will collapse under the scrutiny of sophisticated appellate judges who will examine your Administrative Law Demands from the perspective of trying to find fault with them, if your local District Attorney adversary should ever decide to give you a run for your money….

…Those are the types of factual averments of Justiciability that have to be plead in the body of a Demand for an Administrative Hearing, in order to present the administrators with a Case or Controversy that is ripe for a low level administrative settlement. If that Administrative Hearing Demand of yours was submitted to state administrators after a prosecution has begun, then Justiciability is obvious for all parties to see. However, Justiciability still has to be positively plead within the body of the Demand through sequentially presented factual averments, otherwise the Supreme Court won’t know that a Justiciable Controversy was offered for a low level settlement.

Now, theoretically, the failure by your regional bureaucrats to grant the Hearing will later estop a magistrate presiding over criminal charges that were brought out of those circumstances that were offered to have been settled, and should have been previously settled, in a lesser administrative forum….

Settle It Down There

…The Doctrine of settling grievances at the lowest possible level, of which Collateral Estoppel is a correlative Doctrine, is found replicating itself over and over again throughout Supreme Court rulings. This Settle it at the Lowest Level Doctrine surfaces in many places. For example, it is found:

1. In the Judicially created Doctrines of Exhaustion, Primary Jurisdiction, Prior Resort, and Exclusive Jurisdiction, all of which operate to send a grievance down to an administrative agency for different types of rulings for technical reasons, prior to initiating higher judicial intervention;

2. By having the parties first exhaust their lower state remedies in criminal appeals and civil actions prior to seeking higher Federal judicial intervention; this surfaces most frequently in petitions for federal restraining orders to block state criminal prosecutions, and petitions for Habeas Corpus;

3. By having parties seek the lowest possible level of a judicial forum first (i.e., the lowest state court possessing the requisite settlement jurisdiction, and the use of federal magistrates instead of District Court Judges to settle small single-Hearing oriented grievances);

4. By a statutory requirement that a lower final demand for money believed due and owing must first be made and precede the higher initiation of the judicial civil lawsuit;

5. By the delegated conferment by the Supreme Court of a Grant of automatic Concurrent Jurisdiction to every single state court in the United States, to hear and rule on Federal Constitutional questions, regardless of any state statutes that may appear to operate to the contrary; state courts also hold concurrent jurisdiction to hear a large volume of federal statutory based grievances;

6. By the mandates of the Supreme Court to all Federal Appellate Circuits not to interfere with or reverse any findings of facts made by Federal District Court Judges, absent very special circumstances (so that the disputed factual setting the grievance was cast in is settled at the lowest possible level);

7. And in the case of the Supreme Court having Original Jurisdiction, they will first send the Case to a lower regional District Court having Concurrent Jurisdiction by statute. (If this Concurrent Jurisdiction is wanting, then after accepting Original Jurisdiction on the Case, the Supreme Court will appoint a regional District Court Judge to be a Special Master to make findings of facts at that low level, which the Supreme Court will then audit and review as the sole appellate forum);

8. And this Doctrine is also expressed in the self-imposed mandates of the Supreme Court to settle grievances by use of a lower statutory construction if possible, rather than magnifying the settlement remedy by use of the higher Constitutional construction;

9. This Doctrine surfaces in the Supreme Court’s refusal to consider ruling on arguments and reasoning that were not presented to a lower judicial forum first; and

10. The Supreme Court also wants lower Federal Tribunals to use lower state law to settle grievances, prior to using federal common (Case) law or federal statutes….

…All of those are examples of that Settle it at the Lowest Possible Level First Doctrine; and the Collateral Estoppel Doctrine, which operates to penalize the recalcitrant party that did not settle something at a lower level that was offered to them (as an incentive to avoid doing so again in the future), as applied to Administrative Law Demands, is a correct Principle of Nature. It is simply all over Nature and scientific method.

Let us assume that you are a Gameplayer in King’s Commerce, so you are a Taxpayer; so if you have a grievance with your Employer regarding the premature withholding of money from your wages under disputed tax liability circumstances, try to settle it with him right then and there, before going up the ladder a step and invoking an Administrative Hearing with the IRS. If you do not try to settle it with your Employer, the letters going back and forth (proving the factual setting surrounding their threats and your objections) will be non-existent; which means that you either made no attempt to settle the grievance right then and there, or in the alternative, you accepted your Employer’s last offer.  That is the way sophisticated Federal Magistrates view the matter, and if you will but give that model but a few moments thought and imagination, then you too will arrive at the same conclusion: that the reason why you were later rebuffed by a Federal Magistrate is due to your own improper handling of the factual setting you presented to that Judge when prematurely asking for a Restraining Order of some type of tax refund suit. [I suggest that another fact to be presented up front in any such proceeding is the element of FRAUD, which vitiates contracts.] Then after exhausting your potential remedies with your Employer, always first ask for a Contested Case Administrative Hearing with the IRS before going up the ladder one more step and initiating a Judicial Complaint. As you go up the ladder one step at a time, one of the benefits you will be experiencing is finding your adversary making numerous technical mistakes, which when called by you will cause you to win for technical reasons; if you jump the gun like a lot of Tax Protestors do and head straight for the Federal District Courthouse to have it out with your Employer and the King, your grievance will likely have to be addressed solely on the presentment of poorly drafted pleadings and flaky merits (being up to your neck in invisible contracts), since by jumping the gun, no interlocutory steps were offered to your adversary to slip up on.

Any experienced person knows that people in any field, from business to law to engineering to medicine, in any field, always mess up; and IRS agents and the King’s Attorneys in the Department of Justice in Washington mess up each and every single day, over and over again, just like everyone else. Therefore, by jumping the gun, skipping three steps on the ladder, although you may believe that the end result is closer, you are actually only damaging yourself. The sky never falls in because Principles are violated; only very subtle and difficult to detect secondary consequences surface later on in ways that make their seminal point of causation difficult to discern.

Is an Employee Necessarily “In Commerce”?

In contrast, if you are not a Gameplayer in Commerce and have rejected all federal benefits, then as a non-Taxpayer you fall outside the procedural administrative mandates of the King’s lex, and it is provident for you to go directly into the Judiciary.

Should you conclude that it would be provident to initially pursue Judicial Relief, then your requisite array of Status Averments form an integral and important part of the Pleadings, in order to document why you are not a Taxpayer and why you are somehow exempt from the Administrative ladder that applies to every one else.  Even though you may not be a Taxpayer, there may be some technical advantages inuring to players who use the Administrative ladder, one step at a time, but the decisional turning point on whether to initially pursue administrative or judicial relief revolves around a purely status oriented question: Are you a Taxpayer or not? By the end of this Letter, you should be able to get a good feel as to the extent to which you have successfully removed yourself out from underneath the King’s taxation thumb.

As for the Justiciability Question in Demanding Administrative Hearings, unless there is a Case or Controversy at hand, it is foolishness for Government officials to discuss something at an Administrative Hearing that, if discussed, would neither settle nor adjudicate anything; so if your views are that their granting you the Hearing they don’t want to give you would settle something, then that is part of your entitlement pleadings under Standing and Justiciability. In our specific instant case of an Employer, acting in an agency relationship to the King, withholding money from non-Taxpayers who are not involved with Commerce and experience no Federal benefits and is an “excepted subject”, our Justiciable Controversy is the fact that if the Administrative Hearing is not granted immediately, you personally will be damaged by a continuing loss of money that is being withheld from your earnings. That is the kind of hard Justiciable Controversy averment that Judges want to hear, and that is the kind of Justiciability that even case-hardened Federal Judges will reluctantly respect. Correlative Entitlement to Relief averments of standing (your personal interest in the Case) are also required. Since you are personally being damaged by the operation of statutes, your Standing is automatic.

And speaking of the Supreme Court (and stay out of any confrontation with the King unless an extensive journey to Washington intrigues you) the only question you should want answered is essentially a Status question:  Does the King have the right to intervene into simple common law occupations to such an extent that an individual not in an Equity Jurisdictional relationship with the King and not in Commerce, and rejecting Federal political benefits, can force the acceptance of unwanted benefits, and can force a Federal Taxpayer Status on someone (with the attendant criminal liability associated therewith), and can force the signing of contracts with the King, and all of that prior to being able to experience any livelihood at all? If the Supreme Court responds by saying yes, the King does have these extreme intervention Rights to force you to accept his political and Commercial benefits against your will and over your objection, because of some important overriding Governmental interests, then let’s get this monolithic slab of top down Roman Civil Law out into the open so we can deal with it for what it really is.

My hunch is that if the Supreme Court ever grants Certiorari, and if they have the naked nerve to stand up to the King and actually publicly report out the decision in their United States Reports (which is not very likely in today’s judicial climate of intellectual minimalism and judicial restraint (which really means to hide in a closet)), I conjecture that their ruling will be consistent with Nature and Natural Law, based on the factual setting then presented to them, and the King will lose, if the factual setting was set up properly to sever all voluntary attachments of King’s Equity Jurisdiction up and down the line.

Of all of the Federal and state judicial Complaints that I have seen, going back now 10 years (requesting either injunctive or restraining relief, or Complaints seeking refunds from the IRS, although I do know of some uncontested victories), I have never seen one of them correctly plead where all of the required contract annulment indicia and elements of pure Equity severance were presented in one neat little package, with all of the Objections having been made, made substantively, and made timely. Not one. So, Federal Magistrates who have tossed aside such curt and incomplete Complaints, are not Commie pinkos and are not necessarily in bed with the King (there are some Judges who are, but their dismissals of the sophomoric Complaints I have seen are not by reason of any coziness going on with the King); since it is a correct Principle of Natural Law to extract money out of people under some reciprocal circumstances where there is no written contract to be found any place, and even where one of the parties is convinced no money is due and owing (because benefits have been unknowingly accepted under the terms of invisible contracts).

[END QUOTING]

In a system wherein the highest judges are politically appointed and have virtually unlimited (though not ungoverned) power, it truly does seem unlikely that they would ever allow (or be allowed to allow) a victory against the King, no matter how well prepared and plead. Still, if there is any relief to be found within the bar, this is about the only approach that makes any sense given what we have come to know about invisible contracts.

In the section that follows Mercier reviews the case of UNITED STATES V. LEE at great length.  His review has been substantially reduced in this synopsis to stay within space constraints. In a nutshell, the Defendant in this case was bound by innumerable invisible contracts, which precluded any possibility of a win in the King’s Court.

UNITED STATES v. LEE

“Whenever a person attempts to effectuate a rescission of their Social Security Number, and severs the facial attachment of Equity Jurisdiction such a number creates, the Social Security Administration will normally respond in their rebuttal retort by citing and quoting from a Supreme Court Case called United States vs. Lee, to try and convey the image that the Rescission you just filed with them is meaningless and that participation in Social Security is mandatory, just like in Poland….  [U]nknown to the poor Citizen, invisible contracts are in effect he has no knowledge of, and so the Judiciary is being asked to toss aside the contract because some of the terms it contains are philosophically uncomfortable to the aggrieved Citizen.

“Here in United States vs. Lee… the Amish Petitioner sought an Employer/Employee tax exemption from Social Security payments, with the exemption sought being based on judicially enlarging a parallel off-point statutory religious exemption that their lawyers had uncovered.

“(The Congress had granted by statute to self-employed Amish and other religious groups, elective exemptions from Social Security Taxes. Employers and Employees were not granted this exemption courtesy.)

“…The Amish are religiously barred from accepting Social Security benefits, but whether or not these particular Amish folks actually filed a written Notice of Waiver, Forfeiture and Rejection of Benefits with the King to attack the very existence of one of the contracts the King was collecting money under (“Failure of Consideration”), the Court Opinion offers no clear details.

“Since the King had quite a large number of invisible contracts in effect with these Amish folks, the actual rejection of some future cash benefits from one of the contracts individually is an unimportant question, and represents only a very small slice of the King’s total contract pie.

“So here we have an Old Order Amish fellow asking the Supreme Court of the United States to violate every Principle of Natural Law surrounding the execution and enforcement of Commercial contracts.  Under the merger doctrine, contracts we entered into yesterday lose their identity and significance as they are merged into contracts that we enter into today—thus overruling those contracts we previously entered into—and properly so, since the inability to go back and modify, enhance, or terminate existing contracts is irrational. So here we have our marvelous Amish Brothers, entering into Employer contracts with the King as Gameplayers in King’s Commerce, and then trying to nullify a few selected self-serving terms in that contract by using wording found in an older Contract, a Constitutional Contract of 1787.  So the Amish had numerous contemporary Commercial contracts with the King…  But the Amish didn’t see any contracts in effect with the King, so they had no knowledge of their invisible contract defilement…

“The Amish request to weasel out of their Commercial contracts with the King is therefore denied, and properly so… all voluntary Gameplayers in King’s Commerce must abide by House Rules.”

Is Participation in King’s Commerce Voluntary”

Accepting Mercier’s statement, “The Constitution of 1787 cannot be held to interfere with the execution of contemporary Commercial contracts,” it behooves us to address the validity of contracts foisted upon us by “clever rule-making” but which involve elements of fraud, duress and coercion.

[QUOTING:]

The Constitution was never designed or intended by our Framers to negotiate terms of contracts—never.  If you are coerced by the King into being an involuntary party to a contract in order to enjoy a substantive natural right by clever administrative rule making (e.g., the rights of association, speech, work, and travel), then that is another question; as contracts claimed to be in effect where Tort elements of duress and coercion were present at the time of initiation [lose] their paramount standing, and so otherwise off-point Tort Law Government restrainments found in the Constitution would then take upon themselves vibrant new practical meanings and now appropriately intervene into grievances where the very existence of the contract itself is disputed….  [C]onsider the following words of Warren Burger that are now partially quoted by the Social Security Administration lawyers in their retortional rebuttals to facial Social Security Number equity rescissions coming into their offices from Protestors:

“The design of the system requires support by mandatory contributions from covered employers and employees. This mandatory participation is indispensable to the fiscal vitality of the social security system.”

I happen to agree with that statement totally. And if you understand Nature, you should too, otherwise go back and read it carefully again, as it only applies to covered persons. Covered persons have contracts with the King, and contracts should be honored, so stop asking to have the Judiciary help you weasel out of your contracts, based on philosophical political discontentment with some of the terms your contract calls for. I don’t have any problem with Warren Burger’s pronouncements, and furthermore, I don’t have any problems with the merit and substance of the Social Security Administration’s position that your contract rescission is utterly meaningless: because the King has an invisible contract on you even without a Social Security Number, if you accept the King’s intervention and benefits in your Employer/Employee contract…. You don’t need a written contract on someone else in order to work him into an immoral position on non-payment of money; and neither do you need a written contract on someone else in order to forcibly extract money out of him in a Judicial setting (written statements of contracts do offer the benefit of settling grievances in accelerated pre-Trial judicial proceedings, but written contracts are not necessary, here in the United States of 1985, to attach liability and extract money out of other people).  But you do need to get that other person to accept and then experience some benefits you previously offered conditionally….

And now that we are all cognizant of that, in order to get out of this Social Security wealth transfer instrument, in addition to effectuating a rescission of your facial attachment of Equity Jurisdiction via a Social Security Number, you must also effectuate an applied Equity severance by objecting to the King’s intervention into your relationship with your Employer, and waive, refuse, and reject the King’s benefits—and not just the future benefits of retirement income everyone knows about, but also the immediate environmental protection benefits that all Employees experience (as I will later discuss). If one of these lily white (absolutely free from Equity contamination) non-Commercial factual settings is ruled upon adversely by the Supreme Court some years from now (that is, they rule, in some well-oiled pronouncement, that the overriding Public Policy interests involved must preclude the ability of a prospective non-Commercial Employee who involuntarily entered into the shoes of an Employee, to waive and reject unwanted benefits, and that our Founding Fathers in 1787 just did not understand the complex world we now live in, and that the Supreme Court just does not have the time it takes to talk about Principles of Nature or of the quiescent ambiance that permeated the relationship between the King and the Countryside up to the 1900s, and that the Federal Taxpayer Status with its attendant criminal liability provisions is now mandatory by all Americans just in order to eat and have a simple livelihood), then that’s fine with us, as it is important to simply get it out into the open: Since the King is then dealing with us out in the open under Roman Civil Law-styled force and coercion, then our reciprocation will then be on similar terms.

But as for important present considerations, this Objection and Benefit Rejection must be served synchronous with the timing of your entrance into your next non-Commercial Employee/Employer contract. Now that we understand that the entire Employer/Employee relational setting is Commercially oriented from top to bottom, may I also suggest in providence that a change in addressable names from employment to, perhaps, livelihood, and from Employee to worker might be recommended; together with explicit disavowal of the characterization employment, due to the inherent commercial benefits accepted and important business stigma it automatically creates with Judges—a stigma that automatically overrules and annuls any and all Tax Protesting courtroom arguments sounding in the Tort of Constitutional unfairness.

…But what if you are different?

What happens if you did not enter into that closed private domain of King’s Commerce as a matter of choice?

What if you are forced into Commerce by clever administrative rule making on your Employer, through the operation of a contract that your Employer already has with the King for other reasons? Now what?

In my personal facial Equity rescission, I claimed that the Social Security Administration is jurisdictionally similar to a Federal District Court, i.e., on a limited jurisdictional mission by the Congress, and that they have no grant of jurisdiction in Title 42 to prevent, interfere, or obstruct with terminal contract rescission and benefit forfeiture, nor does Title 42 in any way restrain the cancellation of Social Security contracts and the attachment of Equity Jurisdiction with the King such a contract initiates. And these rights are self-existent under Common Law unless specifically overruled. And I emphasized the waiver and forfeiture of benefits, and toned down the significance of the rescission of the assigned Social Security Number itself. So in the retortional rebuttal response I received back from the Social Security Administration, no such off-point foolish rebuttal was made to United States vs. Lee, and the entire rebuttal Letter, which was rather long, simply went from one paragraph to the next telling me of all the dire practical consequences I would be experiencing without having a precious little Social Security Number in effect.

To those persons who have Social Security contracts, both the United States Social Security Administration and the Contract itself is governed by Title 42, Social Security Act, and so Title 42 now becomes the terms of your Social Security Contract.

Question:  Have you ever read your contract?

Why are so many folks so willing to enter into contracts they have never read? Typically, the response would be something to the effect that: “Well, it’s just a checking account...”

No, it is not just a bank account. No, it’s not just a Social Security Number. Those contracts have multiple secondary and ripple tertiary effects that expose people to criminal liability for nothing more than mere forgetful negligence on their part. They are Conclusive Evidence of your having accepted a Federal Commercial Benefit…. If no initial refusal was made by you to provide a Social Security Number to your Employer, and no objection to the presentation of your Social Security Number was made at the time actual presentation was made, then failure to object timely is fatal, and Magistrates have no choice but to ignore your defenses later on when a confrontation with the King arises, and to characterize your Protestor caliber “wages are not taxable”, and “no liability exists to Title 26...” arguments, at that time, as being specious and frivolous, and properly so….

If this model scenario of initial refusal followed by continuing objection was not correctly replicated in your present employment initiation setting, then pay your Bolshevik Income Tax this time and eat it; no war was ever fought in a single campaign, and setbacks and reversals are always expected by sophisticated strategists in all disciplines (subject to the qualification that intellectual wisdom and factual knowledge were acquired in place of some other tangible form of conquest).

The Grand Key: Acceptance of Benefits

In summary, consider the following Case Study: If I were to lease you my car, and we signed an Agreement to that effect stating everything, we now have a contract... Right? No, not yet. There is no contract in effect until benefits have been accepted and you take possession of my car.  That acceptance of benefits is the Grand Key to lock yourself into, and unlock yourself away from, contract liability altogether, in toto. The only reason why Signing the contract sometimes creates the contract is because the written statement of the contract contains the admission by you that you have accepted a benefit.  Now let’s give this continuing auto leasing scenario a factual twist: You now have taken possession of the car, and while you are out driving around in my car, you file a Notice of Rescission of Contract, in rem on me, telling me that you are canceling the Automobile Rental Agreement we signed. Does that Rescission cancel the contract? No, it does not, and the contract very much remains in full force and effect. And I, as the owner of the car, can go right ahead and keep extracting all the money out of you that the contract calls for. In fact, I actually don’t even need any written statement of the terms of the contract at all—I can sue you and very much win. I would [only] need to prove that you did in fact accept my benefits, which isn’t that difficult, and then I would need to prove the amount of money damages due (by showing a judge a long list of those other people I have rented that car to, and the amounts they paid). So why do merchants want written statements of contracts? Because without written admissions from you as to what the terms of the contract were, I would have to deal with you in a protracted trial setting which is financially expensive, and go through the trouble and nuisance of adducing supporting evidence (which costs money), whereas with written admissions your little lies and denials get tossed aside and ignored and I can deal with you very effectively and inexpensively in accelerated Summary Judgment Proceedings—hearings only. So a written statement of the contract in writing does not create the contract—it is just a Statement of the Contract; and it is actually the exchange of valuable Consideration (benefits) out in the practical setting that creates the contract and initiates the attachment of your contractual liability. I know that this line appears to be different or even contrary from what you have been taught by others since its angle of presentation is unique—but read on, and you will see that I am only enlarging on the information your intellectual repository of factual knowledge already possesses. The only time when signing your name to a statement of the contract actually initiates the contract is that when synchronous with signing the statement, you also make the written admission therein that you have accepted a benefit—usually stated as:

“In exchange for good and valuable Consideration in the amount of $1.00, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by Party X...”)

Now with that admission by you, of having accepted his benefits, the merchant has you tied down tight: But it is not your signature that ties you down into a contract—it is your admission within the statement of the contract that you have accepted a benefit that ties you down.

…This is the Grand Key concept to understand in unlocking yourself away from undesired contracts; it is fundamental and is of maximum importance to understand, in order to understand why Federal Magistrates correctly rule, with such rare gifted genius the way they do; as they first snort at, and then toss out, a Tax Protestor’s Notice of Rescission of Contract, in rem filed on some Birth Certificates…. Therefore, Federal Magistrates who snort at, and then toss out, arguments that discuss in rem contract rescissions are not in bed with the King, as it is a correct Principle of Nature and American Jurisprudence that it is the practical acceptance and use of benefits that is the key determining factor on the liability question of holding someone to a contract or not (initially attaching liability).

…And accepting the King’s benefits by going to work in an environmentally protected occupational Status as an employee, without any waiver and rejection of the King’s large volume of labor-oriented benefits, does correctly give rise to a taxing liability on you (under Principles of Nature relating to the immorality of allowing someone to get away with unjust benefit enrichment), with the amount of the tax being measured by net taxable income (or anything else the King’s statutes, as stating the terms of the contract, so define). To waive and reject tangible benefits, you need to return possession of the property to the owner (such as surrendering the keys to an apartment you may have rented, or surrendering the car if a car rental agreement was in effect.  Intangible benefits are waived and rejected by formal Notice stating so in writing (or orally with witnesses).

The reason why benefit rejection is best done in writing is for the same identical reason that complex contracts are best stated in writing: so that all of the details can be presented on the record, without protracted evidentiary presentations just to establish what the record is…. So placing statements in writing is a benefit for yourself relating to the economy of producing evidence later on, and the mere absence of a written record does not derogate your standing before a judge—although you are unnecessarily inconveniencing yourself.

…[A]lways remember just one thing: The King wants your money, and he’s got plenty of ways of getting it, by getting you to accept his wide-ranging array of invisible and intangible benefits without you even knowing it.

The most important element of any playful little battle with the King is the factual setting that you will present to the Judiciary for grievance settlement; and the next most important element is the correct Pleading of the relevant points of law and the technical facts that you want that law to operate on, inuring to your favor.

Adhesion Contracts

[Although Mercier does not come right out and say it in his letter, it seems that almost all contracts with the King are “adhesion” contracts, within which the King maintains the “upper hand” and dictates terms on a “take it or leave it” basis. In such contractual settings, according to a footnote, “…ambiguities surrounding the interpretation of that covenant will be subject to stricter construction, and held against the party possessing the stronger bargaining weight.” (See Graham vs. Scissor-tail, Inc., footnote #16, 623 P.2^nd 165 (1981)).]

There is a judicial reference to a particular subdivision classification of contracts where the factual setting surrounding the initiation of the contract is characterized such that one of the parties is in such an unevenly strong bargaining leverage position that the terms of the contract are always presented on a “take it or leave it basis”; these contracts, entered into this way, are in a special status, and fall under what is called the Adhesion Contract Doctrine…. As a result of the dominate leverage position obtained when pre-printed forms are used by some low-level clerk or contract agent who has no Grant of Corporate Jurisdiction to change, modify, or rearrange any terms contained in that statement of the contract; and so the contract is full of terms, conditions, and waivers of procedural defense lines (“the buyer hereby waives his right to a Notice of Protest”) that would never be there if the contract was negotiated from scratch each time.

In Commercial Law, the requisite “Meeting of the Minds”, so called, is known as mutual assent. Judges conveniently ignore this de minimis Common Law indicia for contracts when a Juristic institution is a party to the contract, with statutes then containing the terms and content of the contract.  With Juristic institutions involved as parties to an Adhesion Contract, Judges want to see the quid pro quo of reciprocity—the acceptance of benefits—being there by you as an Individual, but generally they have no interest in making sure that there was this mutual assent in effect between the parties [the presumption being that all “voluntary” member-persons of the federal corporation have agreed to be bound by the bylaws of that corporation].

…Incidentally, the only defense out of [an] “Adhesion Contract” that numerous legal commentators have issued advisory memoranda on, involves your being able to document (prove) that you did not accept the benefits of that statutory contract. Once your adversary adduces to a judge that benefits have been accepted, the formation of the contract is deemed to be complete, and there are few outs remaining.

Employees, so called, are bound to Federal Statutes by a combination of devices, such as the acceptance of Federally created income generating benefits under the protection and advantages of the Fair Labor Standards Act (which gives Employees the upper hand over their Employers) by those persons accepting benefits such as corporation situs employment and Government contract enforcement of that employment.  Not that the King is really responsible for the primary benefit of that corporation’s offering you an employment position, but that once the corporation does offer you the position on your own merits, the King then intervenes into the Employer/Employee relationship to give Employees rights and the upper hand over their Employer through an array of direct benefits, as well as restraining the Employer in some areas. That Employer, no doubt, is involved with Interstate Commerce, and that Employer is up to his neck in air-tight redundant contracts with the King; and so now the King is using that contractual relationship with your Employer to force a transfer of his benefits over to you. Remember all along that I have been saying that the key… to get out from underneath the King and his Equity Jurisdiction lies in refusing to accept his benefits, and in doing that, you negate the expected reciprocal quid pro quo Federal Judges see very clearly as they snort at Tax Protesting suits seeking withholding relief of some type.

All courts, state and federal, who have commented on Adhesion Contracts, in explaining why Defendant so and so is in fact attached to a Contract of Adhesion, all pronounce similar Adhesion Contract governance: that the best way to defend yourself against Contracts of Adhesion is to go back to the very seminal point of contract formation and attack the very existence of the contract at its origin, by proving that you did not accept any benefits, since the adhesion contract, like all other contracts, came into effect whenever benefits, offered conditionally, were accepted by you.  And where the records show that benefits have been accepted, the liability will always follow. Viewing this from a Judge’s perspective, this means two things:  When did you decline the benefits, and how did you decline the benefits?  So if you improperly Objected (meaning, not in writing and therefore the explicit disavowal was disputed), or Objected belatedly, then you automatically lose; I don’t know how to explain it any simpler.

…And if you accept the benefits of the King’s intervention and protection, through such devices as the Fair Labors Standards Act, accepting Social Security Benefits, and Government enforcement of that Employment contract, it is very reasonable and very ethical and very proper under Principles of Natural Law for the King and your regional Prince to get paid for having done so….

Since our King has intervened to give Employees the upper [hand] in some key selected areas, such as creating a slice of lex to throw at us, like his high-powered Fair Labor Standards Act, our King now wants a percentage piece of the action from the Employee—and that does not bother me at all.

(I may personally view the percentage slice the King wants to be a bit aggressive and excessively generous towards the King when analyzed from a cost/benefit perspective, but the underlying moral and ethical reciprocal considerations regarding the mandatory exchange of benefits remains intact).  Now that an Employee knows his Status as a beneficiary of Federal intervention and benefits, rather than badmouthing Federal Judges, one such person might very well ask the question, “...Gee, most of those benefits never apply to me. Throwing half my income out the window every year to Washington for those benefits is just not worth it.”

That analysis is quite accurate for most folks:  It isn’t worth it; but monetary worth is a business question each of us needs to ask and decide for ourselves, and this is not a question of Law for a Judge to come to grips with in some type of a contract enforcement proceeding, after we have previously accepted those benefits without ever filing a timely objection and rejecting benefits.  In every single Tax Protesting Case that I have examined, based on the arguments submitted, I would have ruled the same way the Judge did. I know that most folks—particularly Tax Protestors extraordinaire—do not want to hear this line and don’t want to be told that it was themselves all along who were in error and not the Judges, but it’s about time someone revealed your error to you.

So any half-way clever King, who wants maximum revenue enhancement, is always searching for new ways to get more folks to accept his benefits [read as: expansion of the government]; and once benefits have been accepted, then the Constitution fades away in significance, as its design to restrain Government under a few Tort Law factual settings is no longer applicable.

And to those types who experience benefits from the King, but don’t want to pay for them by a philosophical reason of political discontentment with something grand that the King is pulling off again with looters and Gremlins, then these Kings always have a redundant pile of Aces tucked neatly up their royal sleeves, just tailor-made to deal effectively with these recalcitrant types; the type that experience benefits provided by a third party, but who refuse to reciprocate and part with any quid pro quo money in exchange for benefits accepted. Federal Judges have a characterization I once heard for this type of a Protestor: a cheap person.  For these folks, the King has Nature on his side (a state of affairs warranting the Tax Protestor’s failure in a Courtroom, a state of affairs Tax Protestors never seem to bother addressing when disseminating legal advice fixated on talking about technical reasons why the United States should not prevail based on impediments in the King’s lex and Charter); for these recalcitrant Protesting types who believe that they are correct, the King has actually worked them into an immoral position: The Protestor is up to his neck in multiple layers of invisible juristic contracts with the King, and the Tax Protestor doesn’t even know it.  Nature is operating against the Protestor, and the Protestor does not even see it.  Yes, there is a very good reason why so few Protestors are winning in the Courts: because the Protestor was not entitled to prevail for any reason….

[END QUOTING]

This segment is lengthy—despite considerable time spent in reducing it for the synopsis—because it is very meaty and most worthy of review at the conclusion of this series. Whether or not this material has given us the Grand Key to personal freedom remains to be seen but at the very least it has provided us with substantial insights into the “ties that bind” us to the King of this world.